1. Rengtu @ Love Kumar, S/o Sankhyakari, aged about 19 years, R/o Village- Behrabahal v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate Raigarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 23.01.2025 Judgment delivered on: 01.04.2025 CRA No. 854 of 2005 1. Rengtu @ Love Kumar, S/o Sankhyakari, aged about 19 years, R/o Village- Behrabahal, Thana Baramkela, District- Raigargh (C.G.). 2. Samant @ Bholanath, S/o Niranjan, aged about 25 years, Occupation- Labour, R/o Village- Behraabahal, Chowki Dongaripali, Thana Baramkela, District- Raigargh (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent(s) : : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 2 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.11.2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 133/2004, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month and R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one month respectively.
Legal Reasoning
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that the prosecutrix lodged a written report at the police station alleging that she lives in village Behrabahal and works as a labourer and housewife. She lives with her husband and a son who is aged about 4 years. On 10-05-2009, her husband had gone to village Gauradih to work. She was alone in the house. At about 9.00 a.m., she was preparing food in the house, at that time both the accused persons entered the house and appellant No. 1- Rengtu caught her and threw her on the floor, pulled off her saree and another accused namely samant gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix. She tried to raise alarm but did not shout. Thereafter, appellant No.1- Rengtu committed sexual intercourse with her. During struggle, the prosecutrix got injury in her right knee. At that time, her mother-in-law came and shouted, thereafter, both the accused persons left her and ran away. upon hearing her voice, some people from the village came later. At around 6:00 P.M., when her husband came home, she narrated the whole incident to him. Thereafter, the husband of the prosecutrix left the prosecutrix to her parental home at Village Kangaon Orissa. Later on mother-in-law of the prosecutrix called a village panchayat 3 and narrated the aforesaid fact to the Panchayat and the panch have assured the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix that they will solve the matter and also called the appellants and according to them, both the appellants admitted their guilt before the Panchayat but subsequently they did not comply with the advise of the Panchayat. Thereafter, the report was lodged on the basis of report dated 15.10.2005 against the appellants for the offence under Sections 450 and 376 IPC After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Sections 376 (2) (g), 450, 34 of IPC against the appellants. The learned trial judge framed the charges under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 450 of IPC, to which the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, appellants examined two witnesses namely Dayanand Patel as D.W.-1 and Sukanto Benarjee as D.W.-2. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial judge wrongly appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother-in-law and her husband though there are material omissions and contradictions in their evidence but the learned trial judge ignored the 4 same and held guilt of the appellants for the alleged commission of offence. It is clear that there was delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution for the said delay. It is clear that the prosecutrix and her mother-in-law both have stated the different stories, thus, it is clear that the prosecutrix and her family members falsely implicated the appellant in the alleged commission of offence. The statements of prosecution witnesses namely Dev Raj (P.W.-2) and Ram Kirtan (P.W.- 3) are also not reliable. Statement of the prosecutrix is also contradictory as on the one hand, she stated that her husband has left her to her parental house but on the other hand, she told that she participated in the Panchayat meeting but the learned trial judge has wrongly disbelieved the defence of the appellants. Medical report also does not support the prosecution case. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the defence of the appellants though it has been duly established that the father of appellant No.1- Rengtu had died on 07.05.2004 just 2 days before the alleged incident and on the date of incident i.e. on 10.05.2004, Tij Nahan function was going on and from 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., Mundan Sanskar was going on and from 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. lunch programme was going on, therefore, there is no possibility for appellant No.1- Rengtu to commit the aforesaid act with the prosecutrix but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the defence of the appellant properly. Also, FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. To buttress her submission, she has placed reliance 5 on the judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Harinarayan @ Bhaiyaji Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 1998 and this Court’s judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed in the matter of Phoolchand Sahu and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another connected matter in Criminal appeal Nos. 1286 of 2003 and 1304 of 2003. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellants accordingly. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellants is not acceptable, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376 (2)(g) of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the said alleged offence. 9. In her examination- in- chief, prosecutrix (P.W.-4) stated that on the date of the incident at about 9:00 A.M., while she was cooking, at that time, the appellant No.1- Rengtu caught hold her; threw her on the floor; pulled off her saree and committed sexual intercourse with her. Another accused namely samant came and gagged her mouth. At the same time, her mother-in-law came there and shouted, thereafter, both 6 the accused persons fled away from there. At that time, her husband went to market and returned in the evening. Thereafter, a social meeting was held in the village but both the accused/appellants did not comply with the advise of the Panchayat. Thereafter, they lodged the report (Ex. P/1) against the appellants after 15 days from the date of the incident. 10. Mother-in-law of the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) stated that at about 9:00 P.M., when she came to her house, she saw that the appellant No. 1- Rengtu was committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and when she shouted, then both the appellants fled away from there. Later on, when she said that she will lodge the report, upon which, the accused Rengtu requested her not to report the matter as he is ready to compromise the matter. Thereafter, a social meeting was held in the village but appellants did not comply with the advice of the said meeting and, thereafter the matter was reported to the police station. 11.Husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.-6) stated that his mother (P.W.-1) and her wife/prosecutrix (P.W.-4) narrated the whole incident to him. Thereafter, a social meeting was held in the village but when the appellants did not comply with the advice of the said meeting, the matter was reported to the police station. 12. All witnesses admitted this fact that the report was lodged against the appellants after 15 days of the alleged incident. 13.In her cross-examination, prosecutrix (P.W.-4) stated that, “ मु(cid:2)झे(cid:4) नीሻ(cid:7) मु(cid:8)लू(cid:10)मु कि(cid:12) घटन(cid:8) (cid:12)(cid:4) कि(cid:12)तन(cid:4) कि(cid:16)न बा(cid:8)(cid:16) ेሲ(cid:19)गट(cid:10) (cid:12)(cid:8) कि(cid:21)त(cid:8) (cid:12)(cid:22) मु(cid:23)त्यु(cid:2) ीሻ(cid:26)ई । मु(cid:2)झे(cid:4) नीሻ(cid:7) मु(cid:8)लू(cid:10)मु कि(cid:12) घटन(cid:8) कि(cid:16)न(cid:8)(cid:29)(cid:12) (cid:12)(cid:30) ेሲ(cid:19)गट(cid:10) (cid:12)(cid:4) कि(cid:21)त(cid:8) (cid:12)(cid:8) कितजनीሻ(cid:8)न था(cid:8) यु(cid:8) नीሻ(cid:7)। Further she stated that, “्ቚ.(cid:21)".- 2 लिलूखा(cid:8)त(cid:4) समुयु, युीሻ बात(cid:8) (cid:16)" था" कि(cid:12) आेሲ(cid:30)(cid:21)" स(cid:8)मु(cid:29)त लू(cid:2) (cid:29)ग" स(cid:4) मु(cid:4)ेሲ(cid:8) मु(cid:2) ’ीሻ बा(cid:29)(cid:16) (cid:12)ेሲ कि(cid:16)यु(cid:8) लू(cid:4)कि(cid:12)न 7 ’ीሻ बा(cid:29)(cid:16) (cid:12)ेሲन(cid:4) वा(cid:8)लू" बा(cid:8)त मु(cid:4)ेሲ" रिेሲ(cid:21)(cid:30)ट* ्ቚ.(cid:21)".-2 मु(cid:2) मु(cid:19) न लिलूखा" ीሻ(cid:30) त(cid:30) मु+ (cid:12)(cid:8)ेሲण नीሻ(cid:7) बात(cid:8) स(cid:12)त" । ” She further stated that, “ युीሻ (cid:12)ीሻन(cid:8) गलूत ीሻ- कि(cid:12) मु(cid:4)ेሲ" स(cid:8)स, आेሲ(cid:30)(cid:21)" ेሲ(cid:19)गट(cid:10) स(cid:4) मु(cid:4)ेሲ(cid:8) अवा-ध स(cid:29)बा(cid:29)ध ीሻ(cid:30)न(cid:4) (cid:12)(cid:22) (cid:12)थान (cid:12)ेሲत" था"। ” 14. Husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.-6) denied this suggestion of the defence that after the incident, he left his wife (prosecutrix) in her parental home and the said fact was also denied by him in his police statement which was recorded vide Ex.D/4. 15. Appellant No. 1- Rengtu also filed death certificate of his father vide Ex.D/3 and according to which, his father namely Sankhyakari was died on 07.05.2004. 16. As per FIR (Ex.P/1), the date of the incident is 10.05.2004 and date of registering the FIR is 15.05.2004. Upon perusal of the FIR (Ex.P/1), it is evident that, some overwriting has been done in the date of FIR. 17.In para 11 of his cross-examination, Assistant Sub-Inspector- Ramesh Chand Sav (P.W.-7) also admitted this fact that there is an error in writing the date from C to C part of FIR (Ex.P/1). 18. Prosecutrix (P.W.-4), her mother-in-law (P.W.-1) and her husband (P.W.-6) clearly stated that after the incident, a village meeting was called and after 15 days of the incident, the matter was reported to the police station. 19.Dr. J. Choudhary (P.W.-5) examined the prosecutrix on 16.05.2004 and she found abrasion in right hand and head but she did not find any internal injuries over the body of the prosecutrix. She gave her report vide Ex. P/6 in this regard. 20. As per FIR (Ex.P/1), date of incident is 10.05.2004 and date of FIR is 15.05.2004. Independent witnesses – Devraj (P.W.-2) stated that in the 8 village panchayat, the appellants were fined for Rs. 1100/- but they refused to pay the same. Ramkirtan (P.W.-3) also stated that before registering the FIR, Panchayat meeting was called. 21. Defence witness- Dayanand Patel (D.W.-1) stated that the father of the appellant No. 1- Rengtu was died on 07.05.2004. Sukanto Benarjee (D.W.-2) who is Station House Officer also supported this fact that Sankhyakari (father of the appellant) was died on 07.05.2004 and he recorded the entry in this regard in death register book. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellants for the alleged offence. 22. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) and other connected matter reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 in para 22 as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be 9 the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there 10 should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 23. Applying the above principles to the present case and close scrutiny of the statements of all witnesses make it clear that whole story is very suspicious. Statements of the prosecutrix, her mother-in-law and her husband are not reliable and also it is clear that FIR was not registered 11 immediately after the incident, firstly a panchayat meeting was held and thereafter, FIR was registered; no plausible reason was offered by the prosecution for delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellants. Hence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. They deserve to be acquitted of the said charge by giving them benefit of doubt. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 450 and 376 (2)(g) of IPC cannot be legally sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 16.11.2005 is set aside. Consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Sections 450 and 376 (2)(g) of IPC. 25. The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS. 26. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV